Support NeoGAF

[Telosfortelos]

We shouldn't define "free will" in such a way that it's mutually exclusive to determinism.

Determinism is overly myopic with regards to consciousness. At a zoomed in scale, we are the result of deterministic processes (or at least uncontrollable, measurable processes). Zoomed out, a complex collection of those deterministic processes form systems that we call "free will". It's significantly more useful to understand human decision making at the zoomed out scale where we can talk about processes of choice and contemplation.

 

[JNT]

Irrelevant since we really cannot perceive concepts like "global" let alone "universal". Same thing with this free-will, we should consider how individuals can improve their lives and environments though empowerment instead of thinking it's all pointless.

If our morals do not extend across everything (which in itself isn't hard to show even within our own species), then per definition our morals can't be universal. Not that it particularly matters since that line of discussion seems more like a tangent to the topic at hand.

There are practical reasons to assume the existence of free will (for instance, our legal system hinges upon it), but this is a philosophical discussion. There is no point in nipping it in the bud by declaring it irrelevant.

 

[Makai]

If we have free will, it's much more limited than we perceive.

 

[Kinitari]

We shouldn't define "free will" in such a way that it's mutually exclusive to determinism.

Determinism is overly myopic with regards to consciousness. At a zoomed in scale, we are the result of deterministic processes (or at least uncontrollable, measurable processes). Zoomed out, a complex collection of those deterministic processes form systems that we call "free will". It's significantly more useful to understand human decision making at the zoomed out scale where we can talk about processes of choice and contemplation.

At what zoom does free will manifest, and can you give an example of it being expressed?

 

[Two Words]

We shouldn't define "free will" in such a way that it's mutually exclusive to determinism.

Determinism is overly myopic with regards to consciousness. At a zoomed in scale, we are the result of deterministic processes (or at least uncontrollable, measurable processes). Zoomed out, a complex collection of those deterministic processes form systems that we call "free will". It's significantly more useful to understand human decision making at the zoomed out scale where we can talk about processes of choice and contemplation.

This seems analogous to accepting micro-evolution but dismissing macro-evolution.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

How does philosophy and other areas see dreams in this discussion?

In dreams we make choices as well, but they have no bearing in the real world, so they would be "pure free will" in a sense, of course you could argue that the whole dream itself was determined previously because of past experiences, but being detached from the real world means anything can happen in them and they will not affect the real world.

Then again some people act in the real world after something that happened in a dream, for sure, but most don't. Dreams are a weird thing when you start to really analyzing them from that perspective.

In that same line there is imagination, I can imagine a dragon in the room I am right now, is it free will the fact I imagined it? it did nothing in the real world and had no consequences, unless we have already seen that the physical object of the brain changed physically when I imagined the dragon. I don't how advanced neuroscience is in that regard though.

All the people who dream stay in the "real world" whatever that is. If we had evidence that thought and imagination existed in a place where the laws of physics didn't apply it would have implications.

 

[number47]

How does determinism work with suicide? You're saying I was always going to do it? How can you even prove that?

 

[Makai]

The creation of Earth could be an example. Out of all the planets that could've formed and housed life, this was the one that did all of that. Right position from the sun, right chemical composition, that's way too perfect to be mere coincidence.

Think about how unbelievably big the universe is. It would be weird if there weren't Earth-like planets.

 

[EGM1966]

If only we had consistent definitions and understanding of these terms and how to apply them and understood the Universe enough to know the truth.

We don't so I'm going for a beer.

Or am I?

Maybe I'll have a sandwich instead.

 

[Two Words]

How does determinism work with suicide? You're saying I was always going to do it? How can you even prove that?

Suicide is an action, like any other, that is the result of previous events.

 

[Kinitari]

How does determinism work with suicide? You're saying I was always going to do it? How can you even prove that?

"Always going to do it" is the wrong language in how i consider determinism. It would be more like, what led you to suicide was a combination of your genetics, health, interactions and past experiences. Every factor in that decision can be traced back to something, no factors in this decision sprang up from the ether.

 

[number47]

Suicide is an action, like any other, that is the result of previous events.

Yes. But who chose to kill me?

 

[Principate]

?

1. What's wrong with using wikipedia for the source to find a common definition of free will?

2. The statement i quoted is describing a specific interpretation of free will, the one I think about in discussions.

3. Of course I'm arguing against the version of free will that i understand to make sense.

Do you:

1. Have a different source/definition of free will you want to share or talk about?

2. Have any actual arguments against my interpreation of free will and my argument against the other interpretation used? Can you defend the "free will is doing what you want to do" position? My argument against it is basically, this is a useless definition, and one that's been used in this thread multiple times

You should use dictionary definition, encyclopaedia, something that can't be altered by literally anyone when trying to define what a word or phrase means.

Here' you are

free will

noun
1.
a.the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
b.the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory Compare determinism (sense 1)
c.(as modifier): a free-will decision

2.
the ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free-will

Definition of free will in English:

noun
[mass noun]

The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/free-will

free will noun
uk us
the ​ability to ​decide what to do independently of any ​outside ​influence: No one told me to do it - I did it of my own ​free will.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/free-will#translations

You know actual dictionary definitions

I was just point out several major fallacies about your post

 

[Two Words]

You use dictionary definition, enclopedia, something that can't be altered by literally anyone when trying to define what a word or phrase means.

Here' you are







You know actual dictionary definitions

I was just point out several major fallacies about your post

I don't get it. Do you think philosphy is chained to the definitions of a dictionary, which are just written by other people? A dictionary isn't an official definition of a word. A dictionary giving you a definition isn't a truistic statement like how saying 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[Cromat]

* lengthy post *

Can you explain to me more what this means, i actually have no idea.

It's just that, doing what you want to do. You feel like eating an apple, so you go and eat an apple. You want to reply to my post, so you do it.

As David Hume put it:

By liberty, then we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains.

Now I know that upon reading this you will immediately think that I missed your entire point. Trust me, I didn't, but this just goes to show you the nature of this debate.

I can characterize hard determinism as follows:

1. The observed laws of physics govern everything in the universe.
2. Humans are physical objects that are part of the universe and as such are governed by the same laws.
3. Given a specific initial configuration of the universe, and unchanging universal laws of nature, then there is only one way the history of our universe could have unfolded.
4. Human actions are part of the history of the universe and therefore cannot be otherwise than they are given the initial configuration of the universe and the laws of nature.

First and foremost let me say that I personally accept all of the above.
The incompatibilist will go on to say:

i. Given 1-4, for a person to act differently than s/he did, s/he must be able to either:

a. Change the laws of nature
b. Change the initial configuration of the universe
c. Step outside the domain of the laws of nature
​

ii. All we know about the world suggests that a-c are impossible.
iii. Hence a person cannot act differently than he or she did.
iv. Therefore, there is no free will.

The compatibilism I personally believe in doesn't disagree with i-iii, only with iv.
In other words, even if we assume that the history of the universe is determined solely by the initial configuration and the laws of nature, this does not mean humans are not free in any meaningful way.

How can that be, you ask? Ask yourself why is it that the perspective of God/no one should take precedence over the perspective of humanity. We all make decisions and act according to our wishes. Throughout human history, individuals from Rosa Park to Hitler, Julius Caesar to Einstein, have all changed history. Their actions, character, motivation and planning made an impact on the world. If I can do what I want to do, then why am I not free? How is the perspective of the outsider looking on the 'block universe', as it is sometimes described, relevant for determining the nature of human freedom? Does freedom consist of being uncaused, escaping the domain of the laws of nature or being able to retroactively changed the original state of the universe?

A universe without laws, or equally, where laws can be trampled over by the whims of individuals, is a universe of randomness, where no action can have any meaning as it is only a product of brute impulse, without being grounded in some greater rationale. The notion that this is the free will we should aspire to, or regret that we lack, is eventually rooted in confusion. Yes, determinism is incompatible with that type of free will, but it's ultimately irrelevant for human purposes.

Which brings me to morality. People often hang up on this debate because of its supposed ramifications on free will. I personally don't see it. Even in a deterministic world, punishment can deter and rehabilitation can rehabilitate. When you train a dog to perform tricks with rewards, you don't need to suppose that the dog is able to escape that causal chain of the universe in order for your training to work. Reward and punishment, praise and blame, simply are factors that factor into our decision making progress, and they make sense even if no radical free will exists. People who are assholes are assholes, and good people are good, regardless of whether they must be so from the 'block universe' perspective. It just doesn't really matter. I'll end this with a thought experiment which I think was given by philosopher Harry Frankfurt.

A person enters a build and faces two doors, marked A and B. He examines both doors, and decides to exit through door A. Unbeknownst to him, however, door B was locked all the time, so he couldn't have opened it even if he had wanted to. Does that mean he didn't actually choose to exit through door A? Does that mean he cannot be held responsible for exiting through door A? I think not.

 

[Kinitari]

You should use dictionary definition, encyclopaedia, something that can't be altered by literally anyone when trying to define what a word or phrase means.

Here' you are







You know actual dictionary definitions

I was just point out several major fallacies about your post

The first definition you pointed to is exactly what I'm talking about, and in fact the wikipedia source goes into more detail. I don't think the dictionary definition is in any way "better" than the many definitions available on wikipedia. And regarding my "major fallacies" what were they? I don't want to have fallacies in my reasoning so I'd appreciate if you could spell them out for me. I responded to your original claims with more questions, hoping to get more info.

 

[Makai]

Yes. But who chose to kill me?

You did. But your decision-making process is the result of its component parts.

From Off To Be The Wizard - where someone finds the source code of the universe:

"...that would mean determinism, which is preposterous."

"But we just proved that everyone is an algorithm in a computer."

"I'm an algorithm with free will, dammit!"

 

[Principate]

I don't get it. Do you think philosphy is chained to the definitions of a dictionary, which are just written by other people? A dictionary isn't an official definition of a word. A dictionary giving you a definition isn't a truistic statement like how saying 2 + 2 = 4.

Yes, but much better than using Wikipedia as a source, these things are verified and peer reviewed for a reason, and are updated constantly. In any sort of fact based comprensive argument, you use definitions like that not arbitrary ill defined definitions that can be you can alter to suit your purpose. The point being was he was ignoring other definitions of free will (which posters were clearly arguing about), and used freaking Wikipedia as a source for his.

The first definition you pointed to is exactly what I'm talking about, and in fact the wikipedia source goes into more detail. I don't think the dictionary definition is in any way "better" than the many definitions available on wikipedia. And regarding my "major fallacies" what were they? I don't want to have fallacies in my reasoning so I'd appreciate if you could spell them out for me. I responded to your original claims with more questions, hoping to get more info.

There are no better there's different, and can't choose to completely ignore and define a word in a specific way that suits your specific argument in, and argument such as this. It really doesn't make much sense.

 

[Two Words]

Yes, but much better than using a Wikipedia source, these things are verified and peer reviewed for a reason, and our updated constantly. In any sort of fact based comprensive argument, you use definitions like that not arbitrary ill defined definitions that can be you can alter to suit your purpose. The point being was he was ignoring other definition of free will (which posters were clearly arguing about), and used freaking Wikipedia as a source for his.



There are no better there's different, and can't choose to completely ignore and define a word in a specific way that suits your specific argument in, and argument such as this. It really doesn't make much sense.

You don't need peer reviewing to make a definition for a philosophical discussion. You're simply assuming that is the definition of free will and going from there. If you decide to define free will differently, then the discussion no longer applies.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

How does determinism work with suicide? You're saying I was always going to do it? How can you even prove that?

It would be nice to know you had a choice eh? That's why I find hard determinism to be a dangerous way of thinking.

Or accepting the fact that you want to act on some heinous act of murder or something as nothing more than just "the will of god". A force beyond your control that there is no use fighting.

Its like, if you were determined to be a serial killer, there is nothing you can do about. Sorry. The universe just dealt you a shitty hand.

I also really don't get how you can say everything is determined yet not believe in fate. Its like the same frickin thing except saying " fate" makes you sound like a hippy or something.

Maybe my brain can't comprehend some peoples interpretations of determinism that has freedom of choice in it. I'm trying but I just don't get it. Maybe I should read a book that can speak more in laymen's terms about it. Half of the posts in here read like gibberish to me.

 

[Foffy]

Yes. But who chose to kill me?

Who chose to grow your hair and beat your heart?

 

[Principate]

You don't need peer reviewing to make a definition for a philosophical discussion. You're simply assuming that is the definition of free will and going from there. If you decide to define free will differently, then the discussion no longer applies.

Academic philosophical arguments exist you know, and philosophy is about as academic as it comes. If you choose a ignore definitions or alter something you down a damn good reason as to why your doing it.

 

[Two Words]

Academic philosophical arguments exist you know, and philosophy is about as academic as it comes. If you choose a ignore definitions or alter something you down a damn good reason as to why your doing it.

This isn't an academic-level discussion. I mean, I hope you don't require as much thorough proofs when your friends say something as a discrete math teacher might.

 

[Principate]

It would be nice to know you had a choice eh? That's why I find hard determinism to be a dangerous way of thinking.

Or accepting the fact that you want to act on some heinous act of murder or something as nothing more than just "the will of god". A force beyond your control that there is no use fighting.

Its like, if you were determined to be a serial killer, there is nothing you can do about. Sorry. The universe just dealt you a shitty hand.

I also really don't get how you can say everything is determined yet not believe in fate. Its like the same frickin thing except saying " fate" makes you sound like a hippy or something.

Maybe my brain can't comprehend some peoples interpretations of determinism that has freedom of choice in it. I'm trying but I just don't get it. Maybe I should read a book that can speak more in laymen's terms about it. Half of the posts in here read like gibberish to me.

But that's complete bullshit, you can't believe in the big bang evolution and quantum mechanics, and come out of it believing the universe told you to do jack shit. There's has to be a massive leap in logic to even contemplate that. you believe in an entirely random world and then go oh wait it isn't.

 

[mantidor]

A universe without laws, or equally, where laws can be trampled over by the whims of individuals, is a universe of randomness, where no action can have any meaning as it is only a product of brute impulse, without being grounded in some greater rationale. The notion that this is the free will we should aspire to, or regret that we lack, is eventually rooted in confusion. Yes, determinism is incompatible with that type of free will, but it's ultimately irrelevant for human purposes.

I even think this isn't necessarily incompatible with those four things you mentioned.

Theoretical physicists when talking about the big bang said something about a "randomness" that created the universe as we know it, I'm really rusty on this but it was when they took the "first photograph of the big bang" or some other misleading headline, I think it was the background radiation? anyway. If the big bang was this perfect sphere of energy-space-time the universe would not have existed, something rippled through it and we (as in physical matter, and anti matter and everything) were the result of this ripping in the fabric.

So maybe the laws of the universe have this "randomness" in them, it's not absolute randomness of course, but its there. Randomness, or lets say, uncertainty, are definitely part of our current model of the laws of the universe.

 

[collige]

It would be nice to know you had a choice eh? That's why I find hard determinism to be a dangerous way of thinking.

Or accepting the fact that you want to act on some heinous act of murder or something as nothing more than just "the will of god". A force beyond your control that there is no use fighting.

Its like, if you were determined to be a serial killer, there is nothing you can do about. Sorry. The universe just dealt you a shitty hand.

I also really don't get how you can say everything is determined yet not believe in fate. Its like the same frickin thing except saying " fate" makes you sound like a hippy or something.

Maybe my brain can't comprehend some peoples interpretations of determinism that has freedom of choice in it. I'm trying but I just don't get it. Maybe I should read a book that can speak more in laymen's terms about it. Half of the posts in here read like gibberish to me.

It depends on how you thinking of 'choice'. Determinism doesn't mean that people don't make their own decisions, it just means that the outcome of their decisions was determined by the laws of physics (and quantum randomness) acting and the material that comprises their brain. To me, implying otherwise is no different than arguing for the existence of a soul or some other spiritual mumbo jumbo.

 

[linid0t]

* lengthy post *



It's just that, doing what you want to do. You feel like eating an apple, so you go and eat an apple. You want to reply to my post, so you do it.

As David Hume put it:



Now I know that upon reading this you will immediately think that I missed your entire point. Trust me, I didn't, but this just goes to show you the nature of this debate.

I can characterize hard determinism as follows:

1. The observed laws of physics govern everything in the universe.
2. Humans are physical objects that are part of the universe and as such are governed by the same laws.
3. Given a specific initial configuration of the universe, and unchanging universal laws of nature, then there is only one way the history of our universe could have unfolded.
4. Human actions are part of the history of the universe and therefore cannot be otherwise than they are given the initial configuration of the universe and the laws of nature.

First and foremost let me say that I personally accept all of the above.
The incompatibilist will go on to say:

i. Given 1-4, for a person to act differently than s/he did, s/he must be able to either:

a. Change the laws of nature
b. Change the initial configuration of the universe
c. Step outside the domain of the laws of nature
​

ii. All we know about the world suggests that a-c are impossible.
iii. Hence a person cannot act differently than he or she did.
iv. Therefore, there is no free will.

The compatibilism I personally believe in doesn't disagree with i-iii, only with iv.
In other words, even if we assume that the history of the universe is determined solely by the initial configuration and the laws of nature, this does not mean humans are not free in any meaningful way.

How can that be, you ask? Ask yourself why is it that the perspective of God/no one should take precedence over the perspective of humanity. We all make decisions and act according to our wishes. Throughout human history, individuals from Rosa Park to Hitler, Julius Caesar to Einstein, have all changed history. Their actions, character, motivation and planning made an impact on the world. If I can do what I want to do, then why am I not free? How is the perspective of the outsider looking on the 'block universe', as it is sometimes described, relevant for determining the nature of human freedom? Does freedom consist of being uncaused, escaping the domain of the laws of nature or being able to retroactively changed the original state of the universe?

A universe without laws, or equally, where laws can be trampled over by the whims of individuals, is a universe of randomness, where no action can have any meaning as it is only a product of brute impulse, without being grounded in some greater rationale. The notion that this is the free will we should aspire to, or regret that we lack, is eventually rooted in confusion. Yes, determinism is incompatible with that type of free will, but it's ultimately irrelevant for human purposes.

Which brings me to morality. People often hang up on this debate because of its supposed ramifications on free will. I personally don't see it. Even in a deterministic world, punishment can deter and rehabilitation can rehabilitate. When you train a dog to perform tricks with rewards, you don't need to suppose that the dog is able to escape that causal chain of the universe in order for your training to work. Reward and punishment, praise and blame, simply are factors that factor into our decision making progress, and they make sense even if no radical free will exists. People who are assholes are assholes, and good people are good, regardless of whether they must be so from the 'block universe' perspective. It just doesn't really matter. I'll end this with a thought experiment which I think was given by philosopher Harry Frankfurt.

A person enters a build and faces two doors, marked A and B. He examines both doors, and decides to exit through door A. Unbeknownst to him, however, door B was locked all the time, so he couldn't have opened it even if he had wanted to. Does that mean he didn't actually choose to exit through door A? Does that mean he cannot be held responsible for exiting through door A? I think not.

This was a great post! Highlights how proponents of free will can still accept deterministic views of the universe. Personally, I'm not sure I agree, since the definition of free will that is applied here is not one that I would use.

To add something to the discussion, I gotta wonder why people always bring up quantum mechanics as a way to "defeat" deterministic arguments against free will. Even if the underlying universe is inherently random, this doesn't mean that there exists free will (as defined as something like the ability of an agent to break the chain of causation), as it would imply that all actions done by an agent are random, rather than chosen (or determined).

edit:

also must add that I've always felt that discussions on this topic on the internet just end up as people talking past each other due to a misunderstanding or disagreement on the definitions used

 

[Principate]

This isn't an academic-level discussion. I mean, I hope you don't require as much thorough proofs when your friends say something as a discrete math teacher might.

Indeed it isn't doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the argument to higher standard when challenged. Or do you think we shouldn't argue using the most accurate facts you can either, even when not using the most accurate facts would lead to entirely the wrong conclusions.

 

[Two Words]

Indeed it isn't doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the argument to higher standard when challenged. Or do you think we shouldn't argue using the most accurate facts you can either, even when not using the most accurate facts would lead to entirely the wrong conclusions.

You instantly dismissed the definition, not because of its content, but its source. That seems like a thing only to do when working at an academic, peer-review discussion.

 

[Shai-Tan]

It would be nice to know you had a choice eh? That's why I find hard determinism to be a dangerous way of thinking.

Or accepting the fact that you want to act on some heinous act of murder or something as nothing more than just "the will of god". A force beyond your control that there is no use fighting.

Its like, if you were determined to be a serial killer, there is nothing you can do about. Sorry. The universe just dealt you a shitty hand.

I also really don't get how you can say everything is determined yet not believe in fate. Its like the same frickin thing except saying " fate" makes you sound like a hippy or something.

Maybe my brain can't comprehend some peoples interpretations of determinism that has freedom of choice in it. I'm trying but I just don't get it. Maybe I should read a book that can speak more in laymen's terms about it. Half of the posts in here read like gibberish to me.

That kind of fatalism was concluded in the 90s and earlier from various interpretations of determinism by scientists but I think the discussion has become more philosophically sophisticated to the point where it simply doesn't follow. Cognitive science has made a lot of progress in understanding of what morality is to suggest that responsibility is more complicated anyway.

 

[mantidor]

To add something to the discussion, I gotta wonder why people always bring up quantum mechanics as a way to "defeat" deterministic arguments against free will. Even if the underlying universe is inherently random, this doesn't mean that there exists free will (as defined as something like the ability of an agent to break the chain of causation), as it would imply that all actions done by an agent are random, rather than chosen (or determined).

I might be wrong but quantum mechanics don't state that everything is random, but that at some levels (very small, fundamental, atomic levels) things are random, or more specifically, uncertain. But at macro levels things are still deterministic.

There is a common saying that if you throw yourself into a wall there's a minuscule chance your atoms will go through it and you will pass the wall, but I think that is a gross oversimplification of quantum theory. From a scientific perspective no one would conduct such an absurd experiment.

 

[LegendofLex]

This is going to sound incredibly distilled, but...

I do not believe that choices are forced.

I do, however, believe that conditions are.

I also believe that conditions have greater influence over our choices than we typically perceive.

In addition, I believe that our choices have a smaller influence over our conditions than we would like to believe.

 

[Telosfortelos]

At what zoom does free will manifest, and can you give an example of it being expressed?

Let me steal someone else's words. From Quantum Mechanics and Its Emergent Macrophysics, available at least in part here: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7433.html

"As a first step towards contemplating the quantum mechanical basis of macrophysics, we note the empirical fact that macroscopic systems enjoy properties that are radically different from those of their constituent particles. Thus, unlike systems of few particles, they exhibit irreversible dynamics, phase transitions and various ordered structures, including those characteristic of life. These and other macroscopic phenomena signify that complex systems, that is, ones consisting of enormous numbers of interacting particles, are qualitatively different from the sums of their constituent parts. Correspondingly, theories of such phenomena must be based not only on quantum mechanics per se but also on conceptual structures that serve to represent the characteristic features of highly complex systems"

The point is that complex systems exhibit patterns that should be evaluated at the levels on which the patterns emerge. Consciousness and the neural and chemical reasons we do things (decisions) are examples of such patterns. They're constructed by processes that when performed repeatedly at an enormous scale produce measurable patterns that can be studied and discussed without refuting the underlying deterministic nature of physics. It is not useful to discuss the electromagnetism of psychology. It is useful to discuss systems of reproduction and consciousness without discussing the underlining basic physics.

This seems analogous to accepting micro-evolution but dismissing macro-evolution.

Certainly not. It's not a refutation of the impact of underlying physics. In fact, evolution is a great example of a complex system that we discuss at the level where the pattern emerges without refuting underlying physical properties. Similarly, we should discuss what it means when we talk about "decisions" without saying something about how it's all just an illusion. "Decisions" and consciousness are very real, very interesting patterns in nature.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

But that's complete bullshit, you can't believe in the big bang evolution and quantum mechanics, and come out of it believing the universe told you to do jack shit. There's has to be a massive leap in logic to even contemplate that. you believe in an entirely random world and then go oh wait it isn't.

Isn't that what most people in here are saying?

It depends on how you thinking of 'choice'. Determinism doesn't mean that people don't make their own decisions, it just means that the outcome of their decisions was determined by the laws of physics (and quantum randomness) acting and the material that comprises their brain. To me, implying otherwise is no different than arguing for the existence of a soul or some other spiritual mumbo jumbo.

So people are basically products of their environment. I still don't understand how quantum randomness and determinism can exist in the same framework.
Random determinism sounds like an oxymoron.

That kind of fatalism was concluded in the 90s and earlier from various interpretations of determinism by scientists but I think the discussion has become more philosophically sophisticated to the point where it simply doesn't follow. Cognitive science has made a lot of progress in understanding of what morality is to suggest that responsibility is more complicated anyway.

Yeah, I think I'm in over my head.

 

[Not]

A dice roll seems random, but if you could apply the exact same forces on a set of dice at the exact same angles and surface friction and configuration of atoms, you'd get the same results every time. I don't think our brain cells consisting of a cocktail of proteins and electrical signals are all that different.

At a certain infinitesimal point, you might as well just call it free will. It's basically grasping at quark-sized straws.

Yeah, free will. Cause fuck it. That's the way I see the universe, so from my perspective, that's the way it is. I'm never going to observe reality through any conduit other than my own brain, so that might as well be the way it is. In other words-- let me rationalize being an ignorant human being via knowledge of the universe's complexity, not despite it.

 

[linid0t]

I might be wrong but quantum mechanics don't state that everything is random, but that at some levels (very small, fundamental, atomic levels) things are random, or more specifically, uncertain. But at macro levels things are still deterministic.

There is a common saying that if you throw yourself into a wall there's a minuscule chance your atoms will go through it and you will pass the wall, but I think that is a gross oversimplification of quantum theory. From a scientific perspective no one would conduct such an absurd experiment.

but these micro-level events can eventually fundamentally (and randomly) effect the macro-level events, which means that yes, macro-level events aren't deterministic. Like how quantum level events in Schrodinger's cat determine the state of the cat.

(or at least I think that's how it works, been a while since I studied physics related classes lol)

 

[linid0t]

So people are basically products of their environment. I still don't understand how quantum randomness and determinism can exist in the same framework.
Random determinism sounds like an oxymoron.

yeah this stuff is pretty pointless to the discussion of free will I think. Either:
a) universe is deterministic, no free will
b) universe is random, so actions are random, so choices are random - no free will

Free will in the sense of agents breaking the chain of causation, that is

 

[raphier]

sexual thoughts are deterministic, but how you get there is your own choice.

 

[MikeyB]

It's not a meaningful question. Whichever it is doesn't change that we made decisions based on our experiences. Even if we found out for sure, we'd still live our lives as we have right now.

Nah, because the question is whether the "we" is the organism or the "we" is our sense of agency. Whether you think it is one or another affects public policy, advertising, justice, and all sorts of other things.

For example, standard approach in economics is to assume rational agency where consumers make choices consciously based on the best information they have. Behavioural economics, on the other hand, shows that consumers make a lot of choices due to unconscious bias that doesn't meet the imagined careful determinations of the rational agent. They are less free than the rational agent. That has important implications for public policy like focusing interventions on the framing of choices rather than clear disclosure statements in contracts.

 

[Arkeband]

At a certain infinitesimal point, you might as well just call it free will. It's basically grasping at quark-sized straws.

Yeah, free will. Cause fuck it. That's the way I see the universe, so from my perspective, that's the way it is. I'm never going to observe reality through any conduit other than my own brain, so that might as well be the way it is. In other words-- let me rationalize being an ignorant human being via knowledge of the universe's complexity, not despite it.

Your argument for free will is "Let me be dumb"?

If we can manipulate ants with 100% certainty of what their next decision will be based on our input, does free will exist because in their little ant brains, it's true for them?

 

[Doctor Doom]

* lengthy post *



It's just that, doing what you want to do. You feel like eating an apple, so you go and eat an apple. You want to reply to my post, so you do it.

The desire or 'feel like' is the result of the activity of some neurons, who in turn are activated by either intrinsic activity, incoming information from other neurons or a combination of both.

An advanced brain computer interface could directly stimulate these neurons causing you to intensely want a particular food or to intensely want to have sex with a particular person. Whether the result of other nonagent factors or agent factors the very will itself is not free. If you claim to have free will then it would exist whether your will was predetermined by neural activity or predetermined by an external agent controlling said neural activity through an advanced BCI, no? I don't see why there being agency behind the predetermined WILL either by someone with an advanced BCI or some type of godlike creator would change that for a compatibilist view. Just think if it is predetermined, what would be the difference between it being the result of another conscious agent or the result of forces with no conscious agent involved?

Yet many if not most might say that if a godlike creator predetermined the choice of say having sex in a particular day with a particular person(perhaps the very incarnation of the god itself), they would say that's rape not true consent.

A person enters a build and faces two doors, marked A and B. He examines both doors, and decides to exit through door A. Unbeknownst to him, however, door B was locked all the time, so he couldn't have opened it even if he had wanted to. Does that mean he didn't actually choose to exit through door A? Does that mean he cannot be held responsible for exiting through door A? I think not.

But say it was Jenny who controlled the activity of neurons that caused him to will such or to choose door A. What then? Does it matter whether 'Jenny' is the name we give to another person or to the other neurons in the brain which are providing information that will guide the activity of the neurons behind the sense of will, neurons which themselves are part of the causal chain?

 

[Kinitari]

Nah, because the question is whether the "we" is the organism or the "we" is our sense of agency. Whether you think it is one or another affects public policy, advertising, justice, and all sorts of other things.

For example, standard approach in economics is to assume rational agency where consumers make choices consciously based on the best information they have. Behavioural economics, on the other hand, shows that consumers make a lot of choices due to unconscious bias that doesn't meet the imagined careful determinations of the rational agent. They are less free than the rational agent. That has important implications for public policy like focusing interventions on the framing of choices rather than clear disclosure statements in contracts.

Busy in meetings so can't post a lot, but i think this is a great post. There are a lot of other great posts to, even some i don't entirely agree with, good discussion all around

 

[Principate]

The desire or 'feel like' is the result of the activity of some neurons, who in turn are activated by either intrinsic activity, incoming information from other neurons or a combination of both.

An advanced brain computer interface could directly stimulate these neurons causing you to intensely want a particular food or to intensely want to have sex with a particular person. Whether the result of other nonagent factors or agent factors the very will itself is not free. If you claim to have free will then it would exist whether your will was predetermined by neural activity or predetermined by an external agent controlling said neural activity through an advanced BCI, no? I don't see why there being agency behind the predetermined WILL either by someone with an advanced BCI or some type of godlike creator would change that for a compatibilist view. Just think if it is predetermined, what would be the difference between it being the result of another conscious agent or no conscious agent?



But say it was Jenny who controlled the activity of neurons that caused him to will such or to choose door A. What then? Does it matter whether 'Jenny' is the name we give to another person or to the other neurons in the brain which are providing information that will guide the activity of the neurons behind the sense of will, neurons which themselves are part of the causal chain?

Your separating your conscious and your brain, which are one and the same. In your example Jenny is you (as in your thoughts motivations culmination of everything that has occurred and how it has affected your brain).

The only reason you even contemplate this question is those same neurons. The being that is here now is culmination of all your past experiences, and your brain which has determined how it has interpreted, it may not be and probably won't be the same "you" as tomorrow or 5 years from now, or 10 years from now. But they are all this you, and every changing and adapting you.

 

[Doctor Doom]

Your separating your conscious the your brain, which are one and the same. In your example Jenny is you (as in your thoughts motivations culmination of everything that has occurred and how it has affected your brain).

The only reason you even contemplate this question is those same neurons.

Not all of the brain is conscious, you might say all of the brain is me, and it would still be me if it was rewired through experience or artificial stimulation, but clearly the moment that you are divisible or have components, those components are part of you but they're not truly YOU per se. Combined they constitute you, but not only do most operate outside of consciousness, but they're machinery which is controlling what's going to happen, whether part of you or not, it does not change the fact that they're cogs determining your fate and outside your control just part of a causal chain.

Implanting a chip or rewiring the brain a bit would not change it from being you, and natural or artificially occurring rewiring is all the same outside your control. This rewiring will prove highly influential in your choice or will.

In some areas the brain will even add new cells built from the building material found in the food you eat and incorporate it into important portions of itself. Despite this addition of new hardware, as well as new connections, you still remain you. But what if instead of it being a genetic program controlling the rewiring and addition of new cells it was an external agent? It would all the same be outside your control, in one case there would be agency in another there wouldn't.

 

[number47]

You did. But your decision-making process is the result of its component parts.

From Off To Be The Wizard - where someone finds the source code of the universe:

"...that would mean determinism, which is preposterous."

"But we just proved that everyone is an algorithm in a computer."

"I'm an algorithm with free will, dammit!"

I want to vomit so bad. Decision making process? You don't think before you do? Wtf. I'm done with this circling.

 

[FiggyCal]

I was in the Free Will camp and then I read this

RIP Free will

Gross ... a Sam Harris book.

 

[XOMTOR]

A dice roll seems random, but if you could apply the exact same forces on a set of dice at the exact same angles and surface friction and configuration of atoms, you'd get the same results every time. I don't think our brain cells consisting of a cocktail of proteins and electrical signals are all that different.

In the case of a dice, it's a macro level event and one that you may well be able to predict with reasonable accuracy given enough data. It's unlikely that quantum effects would play much of a role in such a situation.

Now go back to the early universe when all that existed were sub atomic particles. If we were attempting to predict the roll of a dice 13.8b years in the future in such a universe, how would we proceed?

 

[Doctor Doom]

In the case of a dice, it's a macro level event and one that you may well be able to predict with reasonable accuracy given enough data. It's unlikely that quantum effects would play much of a role in such a situation.

Now go back to the early universe when all that existed were sub atomic particles. If we were attempting to predict the roll of a dice 13.8b years in the future in such a universe, how would we proceed?

Depends on if it is a four dimensional block universe, and someway to access it freely exists.
edit link changed

"People like us who believe in physics know
that the distinction between the past, the present
and the future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion"
Albert Einstein

There's always the chance that the nature of the future and present is the same as the past, fully determined, and always existing. Right now many assume that the present exists and is special, and that there is some mechanism for transforming the indeterminate future into the special present and then transforming that into the fixed past. But perhaps all moments are like the stills in a film, they all exist at the same time eternally and have never begun to exist.

 

[Cromat]

The desire or 'feel like' is the result of the activity of some neurons, who in turn are activated by either intrinsic activity, incoming information from other neurons or a combination of both.

An advanced brain computer interface could directly stimulate these neurons causing you to intensely want a particular food or to intensely want to have sex with a particular person. Whether the result of other nonagent factors or agent factors the very will itself is not free. If you claim to have free will then it would exist whether your will was predetermined by neural activity or predetermined by an external agent controlling said neural activity through an advanced BCI, no? I don't see why there being agency behind the predetermined WILL either by someone with an advanced BCI or some type of godlike creator would change that for a compatibilist view. Just think if it is predetermined, what would be the difference between it being the result of another conscious agent or the result of forces with no conscious agent involved?

Haha as I said the characteristic of this debate is that it goes round and round because people don't use the same terms. So what if it's neurons? what's missing here? What does it mean for the will to be free? Does it mean that it has to not be neurons but some magical entity outside the laws of nature?

Compatibilism states that free will consists in doing what you want, in the same way that I am writing this post because I want to write this point. The laws of nature and the fact that they determine outcomes simply don't count as a limitation of our freedom. In a world without laws, actions cannot follow patterns and plans are impossible. Freedom consists of doing what we want, and therefore it is imperative that our desires be determined by factors that include our personality, motivation and circumstances. Just because you want an apple because of your brain chemistry, doesn't mean that you don't actually want an apple.

 

[Principate]

In the case of a dice, it's a macro level event and one that you may well be able to predict with reasonable accuracy given enough data. It's unlikely that quantum effects would play much of a role in such a situation.

Now go back to the early universe when all that existed were sub atomic particles. If we were attempting to predict the roll of a dice 13.8b years in the future in such a universe, how would we proceed?

The thing is reasonable accurate itself disproves this proposition it has to be 100% accurate, otherwise it's preordained by a certain rule in the first place, is it's wrong some of the time the it's hardly absolute

Those atoms we're talking about are effected by Quantum Mechanics, hence things like quantum tunnelling exists. So every 5 million times you do it chances are you won't get the exact same result even under those conditions. If even one of those results is against is not whats predicted that entire assumption falls on it's head.